Umesh Chandra Banerjee and Sunil Kumar Guin, JJ. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge setting aside the order of dismissal of the writ petitioner from service and with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner with all back wages.
(2.) On the factual score it appears that the writ petitioner the respondent herein being a constable in the police force was convicted for offences under Sections 147/323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, however, a charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner on two counts : The first being that the petitioner was convicted of offences involving moral turpitude and on the second count it was alleged that the writ petitioner unauthorisedly absented himself from his duties.
(3.) It appears that by reason of an order of dismissal passed by the respondent-authorities in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from service by reason wherefore a writ application was moved. The matter, however, eventually went before the Appellant Court and the Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the Department Authorities for consideration of the matter afresh. Since, according to the petitioner, the consideration yielded no benefit to the writ petitioner, yet another writ application was moved before this Court and the learned Trial Judge allowed the writ petition with an observation that land dispute being a common occurrence in village areas, involvement of the writ petitioner in such dispute cannot be termed to be an immoral act by itself. The learned Trial Judge observed that it may be that forming an unlawful assembly and by injuring some members of the opponent group, the petitioner tried to take the law into his own hands but it cannot be said that thereby he committed an act which shocks the moral conscience of the society in general or that the act was immoral or involving moral turpitude. The learned Trial Judge, as a matter of fact, did set aside the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service and the impugned order of the appellate authority was also quashed. Further the State Appellants were directed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to reinstate the petitioner within the period of thirty days from the date of the order and to pay him his full back wages since the date of his dismissal from service within a period of ninety days from the date of his reinstatment. On the other count viz., the unauthorised absence, the learned Trial Judge, however, directed that since the petitioner had been found guilty of the second charge for unauthorised absence, a month's basic salary should be deducted from his back wages. The learned Trial Judge further was pleased to observe that this is strictly not by way of punishment but only to remind the writ petitioner that he should maintain discipline in future and he should not indulge in unauthorised absence. In addition thereto, the learned Judge also recorded that the petitioner may also be censured.;